Printer-friendly version
Send to friend
Image: Nonviolent Peaceforce members Bella Desai and Eldred de Klerk during the 2005 Sri Lankan elections. Photo: Bob Fitch.
In case you are just catching up, we ran a dialogue on unarmed accompaniement from January 23 to 29, 2008. And what an outstanding exchange it's been. It started with a few questions, to which our generous resource people provided a wealth of answers. If you haven't had a chance to follow, I would hate for such gold nuggets to be lost on you.
So I have compiled a list of highlights from the dialogue. The list is subjective, but hey, that's what you get for relying on other people's reading...
The excertps were edited for conciseness (from 28,000 words down to 2,000, it's a sizeable summary still), and I corrected a few typos. I also added emphasis to allow you to scan quickly. Do feel free to explore further if you want; the names link back to the specific posts.
Oh, and some of the very best resources and training guides on protective accompaniment were also interspersed in the conversation. So yes, I have compiled a list.
No. You don't have to thank me. I'm here for you. ;-)
— Philippe Duhamel, interTactica.org
Why do this?
Accompaniment is a tool that is used by nonviolent activists to strengthen their nonviolent resistance capacity. It is not we who are "doing accompaniment." It is those activists on the ground who are "using accompaniment". We are there only to help their nonviolent struggles, which, to my mind, places accompaniment firmly in the realm of active nonviolence, albeit in a somewhat subservient and humble role in the process.
I was with Nonviolent Peaceforce for three years in Sri Lanka.
Helping these international, intercultural peace teams provide protection and inspiration to whole communities who live in a culture of fear and anxiety was an immensely moving experience. To help young teenagers find safe places where they would NOT have to become part of the war machine was hugely gratifying. Working with mothers to help get their children released (when we were successful) made for a very good day. Helping local people – principals, priests, fisher folk, monks, mayors, teachers, activists, civil society leaders – and sometimes even police and military personnel, who had a vision of how to “increase the peace” to manifest their vision was deeply satisfying.
What a tremendous blessing to be able to really make a difference just by one’s presence.
Some of this motivation came from my own experience as a child, when the police were called to intervene in my family... and having the feeling that there MUST be a better way, other than using force to change a destructive situation.
Plus, I love being a part of the movement to provide new models for how we, as a species, confront violence.
The point of 'nonviolent non-partisan civilian peacekeeping' is to allow — one might even say 'encourage' — the conflict to continue, but by nonviolent means.
I wanted to tell a little story of my time as a field volunteer in Wamena, West Papua, Indonesia. It seemed that people were actually so afraid that they were rarely even doing human rights work - only a very very few were willing to risk it. So we were going from village to village over the course of a few months to 'socialize' the work of PBI - in case there were any people wanting to do HR work out there but too afraid to step forward.
[...] at 7:30 am a loud knock rang out from our front door. This man was a village elder and had been up by the fire all night after our presentation and finally decided to walk to our house at about 3am. He had just arrived from walking. He had brought along a young man to translate because he only spoke the local dialect, not Indonesian which is the language we were speaking.
He said "my children, I have come to tell you of my suffering and thank you for being here. I cannot tell you all the things I have endured, but it is so important that you are here, that you care about our safety. I feel safer today in my village knowing you are here."
It's a simple story, really. But this was a village that had endured great suffering at the hands of the military and police in the past generations. This man knew to be afraid, and the presence of a PBI house a 4-5 hour walk away made him feel more safe.
— Sarah
On gender and accompaniment
Women are not only victims, but agents! They perform key roles in community reconstruction, rebuilding of the social fabric, bridging accross divides, etc. with incredible resilience, strength and generosity. The problem is that those contributions are rarely given attention by mainstream (male) political actors when negotiating peace agreements, discussing security issues, setting reconstruction programs, delivering humanitarian aid in refugee or displaced camps, designing health/economic/educational programs... etc.
The leaders we discuss with, negotiate, agree, support, etc. are almost always MEN. That is usually what local culture states in the communities we accompany, and of course we want to be respectful of that culture...
It is not only a matter of paying attention to include diversity. It has to do more with putting on special lenses (in this case, gender lenses, but also class, race, ethnic, cultural lenses as well) to see through that lens all the aspects of our work and of the reality we work with/in (particularly, the power dynamics and how they determine the access to, and control over, information, resources, etc. within the community or the organisation), and to act accordingly.
Much of the information we have about violence against women was not included in the report because the information does not meet our criteria that we have witnessed the violence or received first-hand reports. For example, in some communities we have heard general concerns that soldiers are taking advantage of their power and position to seduce young women and girls, sometimes resulting in unwanted sexual contact or unwanted pregnancies.
There are many reasons the reports we hear may not accurately tell the story of how violence is impacting women. Women may be underrepresented in community conversations due to household responsibilities. Women may be economically dependent on men and concerned that reporting abuse will jeopardize their economic security. In a sexist society, women’s voices are less likely to be heard, even when they are raised.
In my experience here at the Center for Victims of Torture and working in refugee camps in West Africa, there was safety in reporting an abuse that happened to a "friend", a "cousin", or someone in the community. But acknowledging that such an abuse was personal took significant trust building. The personal costs of such traumas are tremendous, if we add the social costs of revealing sexual abuse/assault/rape/slavery/torture, the implications are staggering due to the stigma, blame, shame and ostracism that women continue to experience when they have the courage to speak..
Christian Peacemaker Team is obviously trying to meet and address this challenge. Storytelling and theater have provided very useful mechanisms to open the topics and support women in finding their voices to speak out on the violence they experience, first in that "one party removed" manner, and then taking more direct action. The organizations using these tools were not providing accompaniment, however, they were more involved in community education and action. But some of their ideas might be of use to your efforts.
For an example on our New Tactics website see Action Theatre, from Bangladesh.
It is interesting to see how older leadership styles, often pretty much based on male dominance, are more liable to choose violent means to oppose violence, while it is often the women that successfully introduce nonviolent approaches. This is an ongoing debate of great importance, and it clearly shows how men and women not only experience violence differently, but also act differently on violence.
Multicultural teams
One of our questions in Sri Lanka was whether or not the race and nationality would be a critical aspect in our capacity to reduce and deter violence. And at least in that context, it seemed clear that the effectiveness of our peace team members had more to do with our staff being outsiders than from where they came. This was a positive affirmation of having multicultural, multinational teams, which also helped debunk attempts to generalize about our teams. For instance, one couldn't say -- all you "Westerners" or all you "Christians". It was so apparent that the descriptor was inaccurate.
I am thankful to work along side Colombian team mates. Because of Sandra and Julián our current team is richer in language ability, cultural competency and historical and political knowledge.
Unarmed Accompaniment Vs. Armed Service
In our family, I am the “peacenik” who demonstrated against the Iraq War, while my sister joined the National Guard soon after 9-11. My sister gets money for college; I fundraise to serve. I’m a song leader at rallies; she’s a cheerleader for her unit. She endured boot camp; I did a delegation and trained for a month. In training, we both crawled on our stomachs to practice escaping bullets. She suffered burns from a shell casing; I spent a night in cold jail. I mourned the loss of Tom Fox, but marveled at how few deaths CPT has faced in its work in conflict zones; my sister mourned lost soldiers who were dispatched while she got to finish college.
While it’s true that we both enter risky situations, there is an ironic security in the vulnerability of unarmed accompaniment. Soldiers with guns are targets, thus their power makes them vulnerable. Teammate Erin Kindy encountered some armed soldiers in the Colombian countryside. She explained to them, “I am worried for your safety because you are in more danger of being targeted by other armed groups because you have guns.”
I often have led workshops where I ask people to state what is needed to run an armed military and what is needed to run an unarmed peace force. The lists match almost completely. The only major exception is "willing to kill" versus "not willing to kill". We need to remember that the highest ideals of people in the military are no different than our own: love and protection of others, of land, of creation.
Your postings have made me reflect upon those who have not taken up arms for a countries' military service but those who make the decision to take up armed struggle, rather than nonviolent struggle, as their path to institute change. Motivations for both these paths, armed struggle and nonviolent struggle, I would surmise, originate in a deep desire to make a difference - to transform personal and communal frustration into action.
It makes me ponder our human choices. Some may be born out of despair — that the only way for change to emerge is to tear down the structures of oppression and destroy those that maintain and benefit from those structures. Others might be born of hope - to pursue that idea - "be the change you want". To walk that path, then. If we are seeking freedom, then freedom is the way. If we are seeking compassion and love, then compasson and love are the way. The path to healing is healing in the here and now, not in some distant future when the "bad" structures have been destroyed.
I have tremendous respect for all of you who are involved in utilizing and providing unarmed accompaniment - you are truly modeling and being the nonviolent future you want to create - and in reality you truly ARE living that future in the here and now.
I thought you would also have repeated the phrase first coined by A.J. Muste of the International Fellowship of Reconciliation: "There is no way to peace. Peace is the way." That aphorism would be the reply I would offer to those who would take up arms for the sake of 'bringing peace' (eventually).
Another slogan apropos is "Peace through strength". This leads to the naming of nuclear-headed missiles as 'Peacemaker". But there is an important truth to that slogan. As written today by one of the Nonviolent Peaceforce members on the ground in Sri Lanka, true strength of character does, indeed, lead to a peaceful society.
Thich Nhat Hanh was one of many who have pointed out that ideology has killed more people than weapons ever have.
Gandhi had two rules for satyagrahis: 1) Not to kill; 2) Not to take one's own 'truth' as absolute. We all walk the path of "experimenting with truth".
In various countries
In Bolivia, we are facing a situation in which powerful elite groups lead the forces that oppose the threat of structural changes that are supported by strongly organized popular sectors, deeply connected to the indigenous majority. A racist element has become present in many public manifestations of political violence. Attacks are often secretly planned by small groups and have thus become less predictable. Also, the popular social movements face the fact that "their" instruments of nonviolent struggle for justice (hunger strikes, marches, etc.) are being tactically used by opposition. They understand that they need new approaches.
I wonder whether one of the reasons ‘formal’ accompaniment organizations have not been able to develop strong engagements in Africa is that they tend to favour the ‘stick’ approach ('naming and shaming'), which, as suggested, is just not as effective in a continent which has difficulty in being noticed by the world. But I also wonder if the ‘stick’ approach doesn’t somehow fail to resonate with traditional African understandings of peacemaking.
The political dynamics that logically justify accompaniment as an effective tool were as evident in the African countries I looked at as they were in Latin America or Asia, even though the international institutions offerring this tactic were less present there.
The goal is then to foster greater awareness and intentionality among organizations already present on the African continent, in other words, maintreaming protection as a tactic. Groups that are consciously and strategically using accompaniment are able to take greater advantage of the potential, by thinking tactically about exactly where to use their presence, how to back that presence up with political communication or public reporting or external solidarity, and with a longer-term commitment to follow-up on the needs of the people we focus on supporting.
Nonviolent Peaceforce (NP) Sri Lanka has both similar and different methods than NP-Guatemala or NP-Philippines. I suspect that each NGO may provide different types, both in the same country and between country projects... 24/7 accompaniment is a whole different situation, as it accompaniment, or presence in a community.
Training and outreach
Mahatma Gandhi, tells us: "If the method of violence takes plenty of training, the method of Nonviolence takes even more training."
I’d like to throw in the idea of role plays. The experiential aspect of these exercises is critical in training our bodies to respond nonviolently in situations of conflict. Many of us have probably seen the videos of US civil rights activists using role plays to train each other for sit-ins in the 50’s.
I've also experimented with role plays in outreach. I presented on Colombia after returning from a stint with the team a few years ago. Along with the standard photos and a talk, I occasionally invited audience members to participate in a role play. The scenario was drawn from our accompaniment work when an illegal armed group demanded food from a community member in our presence.
A few months ago, I received an email from a friend who participated in one of these role plays more than two years ago. She commented: “…It was a very powerful experience when you asked us to act out a situation. What remains with me is the feelings. And the recognition that with proper training, I might be able to help, and also how significant it is for us to use our 'power'… to protect rather than dominate.”
At some of our Core Training we begun simulations with the traineess at 3am or 5am - and had simulations last full days or even more than one day.
During a Training of Trainers, held in Chaing Mai, Thailand, we enlised many "actors" from the local community and held our simulation across rather wide distances, and used trucks and motorcycles and uniforms and (toy) guns - complete with checkpoints. It helped our future trainers better understand both what life in field was like, and also more grounding in what the trainees were going to be facing.
Risking your life
The commitment to nonviolent struggle and the herioc efforts of human rights defenders is not one lightly taken. Too often people forget, or perhaps need to forget, that much blood is shed to walk the path of nonviolent struggle. I remember how people talked about the miracle of the Philippine People Power Revolution and how it was a bloodless revolution. The country, nor the international press, wanted to speak about the more than 20 years that cost countless lives - taken by torture, disappearances and outright assination; nor the role that steady organizing under the "radar" of a brutal dictatorship that it took to create the awareness and willingness of the public to put their own bodies in the line of fire for change to make "People Power" happen. We could certainly share many other amazing examples in history and more recently in places around world where this has happened. It is truly a miracle, born of our human need to speak truth to power.
This offering up of the human body - a fragile container at best - against the ingenious weapons designed to mutilate and destroy that human body lies at the heart of active nonviolent, the seeking to stand for truth (a truth of one or a truth of many).
When Tom Fox was murdered in Iraq, it sent shock waves through Nonviolent Peaceforce. One thing that gets me is that sometimes people say, after such a tragedy, 'You see, nonviolent idealism doesn't work". After one death. And yet the answer to thousands of soldiers' deaths is, often: "Send more in."
Hope and the Future
I remember hearing Adam Curle speak to this. He was in his 80's, it was in Germany. He spoke about his long career as a peace educator and about peace missions on which he nearly died. At the end of his talk, he was asked "What gives you hope?" There was a long, very long, silence. The audience grew uncomfortable, wondering if he was going to answer at all.
Finally, he smiled broadly and said "I have no hope!"
The audience gasped. Shocked, asking itself, I imagine, "How can one live, much less act, without hope?"
Then he added, "But of course we go on."
I like that perspective very much. Some might call it 'Buddhist'; others might say "classic British stiff upper lip". The point is fundamental to staying in it for the long haul. We go on. No matter.
Accompaniment is a fairly small piece of the field protection reality - the humanitarian community is engaged in a wider range of protection activities, and has thousands and thousands of people deployed in difficult conflict zones to do this diverse work. In a few cases these organizations do accompaniment explicitly, in others it is an implicit impact of a field presence serving a different function. And in many cases, for lack of a conscious analysis of potential protective impact and lack of training in protection training staff, potential protective use of their huge human resources in the field is missed.
There are a lot of great people out there, deeply committed and politicized by working in the field up close to victims and courageous activists. The current expansion of discussion of practical protection impact is giving these committed field workers support and reinforcement to push their own institutions to take more coherent and conscious approaches.
"My role as an accompanier is to create a safe space where threatened communities can organize themselves and work to bring about peace, in the way that they choose. The communities we accompany here in Colombia have lived the armed conflict for years (for most Colombians, the armed conflict has gone on their entire life), they understand the complex social and political environment they're operating in much better than I will no matter how much I study, and they're more invested in the outcome of peace than those of us who can simply choose to go home if the work gets too hard. The communities we work with have all the ideas, experience and skills necessary to construct the conditions of peace; they really don't need that help from us. What our accompaniment is able to provide is the security and the political maneuvering room for communities to carry out their own peacemaking work. "
Great resources finale
- Side by Side, by Liam Mahony
- Key resources on civilian protection at the Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue
- (including Liam Mahony's Protective Presence)
- Other resources on accompaniment
- Protection online
- Evaluation and peace / conflict impact assessment tools
- Training for Change's Third Party Nonviolent Intervention
- Preparing Adults for Peacework and Nonviolent Intervention in Conflicts Guide
- ALNAP's Protection Guide
